I. Minutes of Meeting on January 8, 2014
–Jim Fong commented on the Galileo Project and said it is really 2 parts. One part is the history of Galileo Galilei and the other is about the history of the school. He suggests we separate the two ideas.
–Marcus moves to approve the minutes with Jim’s addition. Motion seconded and it passed.

II. SCE (State Compensatory Education)
–We have $65.000 in this budget to spend before the end of this year. Marcus distributed a proposal on how to spend the funds.
–We have to reflect in our meeting notes that we discussed it, it was approved and then Marcus must adjust the BSC. If we approve this, then we will sign off on it today.
–Jackie asked how many Promethean Boards we need to buy. Marcus said 5 and he would like everyone to have the board. He is going department by department.
–Loan asked if the teachers asked for this equipment. She asked what makes Promethean Boards a priority over other equipment. She mentioned that the Social Studies Department does not have a laptop cart. Jackie confirmed the same for English.
–Jackie mentioned that she has all her students’ assignments turned in digitally after Virginia asked about the use of lap tops. Loan also explained what her students do with the laptops. She also said it is nice to be in the classroom rather than the labs, as teachers can use the computers to teach the lessons in the classrooms and this cause less disturbance in the halls.
–Jonathan asked about the original funds on Marcus’ flyer. He explained that they were part of the budget but changes have been made and we need to reflect the changes.
–The proposed change #4 for the Riso Machines is dropped as there is not enough funds to purchase them.

–Jackie asked what the priority would be if we did not get the Promethean Boards.
–Loan mentioned that much of the testing is in the computer labs and wondered if we need more equipment there.
–Virginia mentioned that PCs are less expensive than iPads. Loan added more thoughts on this.
–Marcus said there were more educational apps on the iPad. Discussion followed.
–Brandon said he prefers a regular keyboard rather than a virtual one.
–The students were asked if they were handed a laptop or an iPad, which would they prefer. They said the laptop.
–Nancy said we are behind many other schools. She mentioned textbooks that can be on the iPads so students won’t have to carry textbooks. She said we are behind in the technology training.
–Discussion followed on the advantages of technology and which is best. Loan said the technology should advance what we are teaching, rather than us teaching the technology. She said that she feels that the laptop cart is more beneficial than the iPads.
–Jonathan asked how the equipment is being used now.
–Jackie felt having 3 laptop carts would be beneficial to the school.
–Loan said from her experience the iPad does not do what she needs to do. She said that students do have challenges with technology too and the laptops will fit their needs.
–Jackie proposed that we get 2 laptop carts rather than an iPad cart. This would also mean one less Promethean Board.
–Jim asked if any faculty members are working on programs with the iPads.
–The new proposal is one less Promethean Board and one more laptop cart. The members agreed.

III. Flyer for 2014 School Planning Summit
–Loan tried to do a clearer version of the flyer. She tried to register online, but it did not work.
–Nancy said we have to submit an agenda for our time at the summit. Part of the day will be a presentation by the district. We will get our budget prior to the summit but then we need to discuss how we will construct the budget.

IV. BSC for the School Planning Summit
–Marcus has been asked to submit an agenda prior to the Summit. He shared an agenda from Presidio MS as an example.
–Marcus suggested we review the current BSC and the new template.
–Jonathan requested that this information be emailed to everyone. Marcus said he would ask Janet to email it to us.
–Loan suggested discussion resources for inclusion.
–Discussion followed about the Student Survey. Suggestion was made to do the survey in core classes, as it takes longer than 15 minutes to complete so Homeroom will not work. Core teachers might complain. Virginia suggested it be a voluntary survey and Brandon said that would produce a biased survey. Jonathan suggested it be done on assembly days as part of the 4th period class.
–On the agenda we should look at data.
–Review 13/14 Priorities and review and reflect if this was a useful way of spending the funds. Priorities were mentioned.
–Jonathan suggested we look at previous cuts and talk about how those cuts affected the school.
–Marcus felt Progress Monitoring should be an agenda item. He felt we should look at our commitment to low class size in 9th and 10th grade—is this making a difference? CLAs in Math and English. Discussion followed.
–Marcus said we need to look at Progress Monitoring in CAHSEE, Graduation UC-A-G eligible, Goal 1—access and equity in CST, ELL students re-classified—are we moving students up? Suspension Rate. Data on diversifying academies and pathways.

–Jonathan mentioned the gender inequity between boys and girls—A-G Ready for last year…71% for female and 50% for males.
–Student Survey will include addressing students feeling safe at school, teachers treating students with respect, courses are challenging for students, and more.
–Data Collection—which measures do we use and how will we measure each tool? Loan mentioned the impact of after school activities and sports on students and how do we measure this.

Marcus asked if there was anything we need from the district. Marcus would like to know what the other schools are doing.
–Jackie mentioned the communication between the middle schools and the high schools is lacking.

1. Review of December 11th minutes: The Dec 11th were reviewed and a correction was made to spell out WASC (Western Association of Schools and Colleges).

B. Grinnell made a motion to approve the Dec 11th minutes. The motion was seconded by J. Ring. No discussion and no objection. Minutes were approved.

2. Review of informational flyer for parents: L.Ly was not able to prepare a draft informational flyer for review as the district has not released an informational flyer on the district website.

3. Follow-up to letter to Myong Leigh. The follow up letter to Myong Leigh was reviewed and one grammatical error was corrected. The letter was approved and M.Blakshur will share the letter and the other budget review documents developed with other high school.

4. Review of SSC election processes:

a. Parent/community representative election process: There was discussion about the current process and a suggestion to have additional ways for parents to vote other than Back to School Night. J. Fong agreed to draft up a more detailed step by step process to add an additional voting mechanism for review at the February meeting. It was suggested to include a discussion of improving communication with parents as a future agenda item.
b. Student representative election process: The student representatives are in the process of writing up the current process to discuss at the February meeting. It was noted that in the past the ASB decided which officers would serve on the SSC. JRing mentioned that he thought it was a good idea to have the ASB president also be a member of the SSC.
c. Classified representative election process: B.Grinnell distributed and reviewed a draft of the process for classified staff. The process was formally approved.
d. Certificated representative election process: S.DeBella was not able to make the SSC meeting so this item was tabled to the February meeting.

5. Review of proposed changes to the by laws: The proposed changes that were approved at the December 11th SSC meeting were reviewed. It was suggested that the number of alternates required be reduced to 1 for each category. J.Nelson made a motion to approve the proposed by law changes from Dec 11th SSC meeting as well as the change to reduce the number of alternates to 1. M.Blackshur seconded the motion. The motion passed.

6. Budget Development Process: The following timeline was agreed on for the budget development process:
• February 21st: Budgets sent to schools sites
• February 25th: Budget distributed to Leadership Team for recommendations and comments by February 28th
• February 26th: Community meeting to hear recommendations and comments from parents and other stakeholders.
• March 1st: District wide school site summit for SSC to begin budget discussions.
• March 5th: SSC meeting to finalize budget recommendations for March 12th SSC meeting for public comments re: budget
• March 12th: SSC and Budget Review public meeting
• March 19th: SSC meeting to finalize budget
• March 26th: Budget due to the district

March 12th: Proposed public meeting process:

1. Proposed budget posted to Galileo website by March 7th.
2. During March 12th public comment meeting:
• SSC chair provides overview of proposed budget
• Public comment period: Those interested in providing public comment, sign up on list when they come into meeting. Each person has 2 minutes for comments/proposals. SSC members may ask questions of speakers for clarification only.
• SSC members will discuss proposals/comments and finalize budget at March 19th SSC meeting.

8. Other discussions:
• Grant Process: J.Fong about the PTSA and GAA Grant Process. He asked if all grants have to have an educational purpose. Marcus talked about a Wellness Grant.
• Discussion took place regarding the Galileo Observatory. J. Fong suggested an after school Galileo project about Galileo the scientist. He thought we could have something about Galileo all throughout the building.
o The Galileo Project is really 2 parts. One part is the history of Galileo Galilei and the other is about the history of the school. He suggests we separate the two ideas.

M.Blackshur made a motion to adjourn the meeting. M.Lau-Smith seconded the motion. Motion passed.

S. DeBella made a motion to approve minutes of 9/18/13. Motion seconded by M. Blackshur. No discussion and minutes were approved.

J. Ring made a motion to approve minutes of 10/16/13.Mele asked about the October 18th minutes. No changes or discussion and minutes were approved. S.DeBella abstained as he was not present at the 10/18/13 meeting.

Jim Fong requested a follow up to the proposed talk with other principals about the budget referenced in the 10/16/13 minutes. M. Blackshur gave an update in the budget discussion below.

1. Budget Discussion

M. Blackshur shared that the letter that the Galileo SSC sent to Myong Leigh was provided to other High School principals by Janet Schulze. There was no other information provided in addition to the information in the letter. No additions were made to the Galileo SY 13-14 budget as a result of the letter.

J. Ring told of a meeting he attended with Myong Leigh in which no further information was provided either. J. Ring shared a document he created that shows how the change that the district made to the per pupil spending formula affected Galileo. From the Spring preliminary budget to the Fall final budget, the per pupil spending formula was reduced by $38/student.

The per-pupil cuts affected Galileo more than the buffer cuts. The AP funding received helped mitigate the impact of the reduction in per pupil spending. However, this may not be the case next school year as the teacher’s contract will be negotiated this year. In summary, the per-pupil spending went down and the high school budgets absorbed the largest cuts when compared with elementary and middle schools.

There was discussion as to how to follow up with the district’s response to the letter sent by the SSC this semester. It was suggested that the SSC send a follow up letter in January asking:

1. If the district is planning on using the same process for this upcoming budget year in which the per pupil spending formula might change from the Spring to the Fall
2. That the Galileo SSC requests the district work in good faith with all SSCs to assure them that the Fall budget will not include changes to the budget formula that adversely impact budgets with no warning. Furthermore that the Galileo SSC will not pass a budget without such assurances.

It was noted that if the SSC does not pass a budget, the Principal will be required to submit a budget that has not been approved by the SSC. This was the case a few years ago when Washington HS tried to not submit a budget a few years ago and the district told Washington that the principal had to submit a budget.

L. Ly also suggested that an informational flyer be develop to provide tips to students and parents so that they can become more involved in the school’s budget development process. M. Lau-Smith asked if L.Ly could draft the flyer to which L. Ly agreed.

J. Peters asked how the Prop 30 funds have been spent. It is not entirely clear how the funds were appropriated throughout the district. It appears as though many new positions have been hired at the district level to support school sites and that not much of the money has reached the schools.

S. DeBella noted that if is a California requirement that 55% of the budget go into the classroom. He mentioned that last year 48% of funding went to the classroom. This is a legal requirement and a way we could possibly put pressure on the district.

All members were asked to save the March 1st date for the School Site Planning Summit. The summit brings together all school site councils and provides an over view of the budget process and workshops. SSC student representatives are included in the summit.

M. Lau-Smith summarized the action items that were agreed on:
1. Develop an informational flyer to inform parents so they can support us. Loan will work on this.
2. Follow-up letter to Myong Li—Mele and Jonathan will work on this.

Jonathan mentioned that the budget comes out before the union contracts have been negotiated.

II. Bylaws

A discussion on the Galileo SSC Bylaws followed. It was noted that there are no alternates for the teacher members of the SSC. S. DeBella will follow up with the teachers who were not elected to let them know that they serve as alternates.

It was agreed that each representative body will develop a nomination and election process for review prior to the January meeting:

J.Ring initiated a discussion about the ratio of SSC members. In the past, there were 4 classroom teachers and 1 non-classroom representative. B. Grinnell suggested that the bylaws make it clear that classified staff have a seat on the SSC. Non classroom personnel can mean other certificated staff such as counselors, etc. This can create a situation where no classified staff are represented. As a result of the discussion it was suggested that the membership of the SSC be comprised as follows:

J. Ring made a motion to revise the bylaws with the above requirements. S. DeBella seconded the motion. Motion carried.

J. Ring brought up Section 2 and 4 for the alternates. It was noted that all nomination and election processes include a process for selecting alternates.

J. Ring brought up Section 6, involving public comments and the process through which public comments are allowed. In terms of the budget process, there Marcus liked it when we had one meeting for public comment and then a meeting with no public comments. Mele talked about the past process.

Marcus said that he needs to make it clear to the group that the SSC is a recommending body, but the principal makes the final decisions. Article II, Objectives explains this process.

Jackie asked if there was something in the document that says the principal should notify the SSC if he or she is not going to follow the SSC’s recommendations, then he or she should notify the SSC. This would be part of the recommendation we sign-off on.

During the February meeting there will be an update of the WASC (Western States Accreditation of Schools and Colleges) review process currently underway. The SSC will be asked to review and sign off on the WASC review prior to submission.

Other items:

J. Fong asked when is the best time for the community meetings related to the BSC and budget process. M. Blackshur noted that they are usually held during the PTSA meetings. J. Fong mentioned that at the middle school his child attended, the community meetings were held at different times of the day and included discussion groups. It was agreed to discuss a community meeting schedule as part of the BSC discussion at the January meeting.

J. Fong inquired about the reasons behind the 27-point reduction in the API. M. Blackshur noted that this is under discussion at the Leadership Team level and said there are some things the school is working on to raise the number.

J. Fong suggested that there might be something to learn from the technology portion of Kahn Academy and that perhaps teachers and/or students could create their own academies. J. Fong mentioned that the school might be able to receive an innovation award as a result of such an initiative. M. Lomneth mentioned there could be some things already in place that can be collected to show implementation and receive the grants.

S. DeBella moved to adjourn the meeting at 4:55pm. M. Blackshur seconded the motion.

M. Lau-Smith made the correction to “b” of III of the minutes, adding “for parent representatives” after initial word “Nominations”. M. Blacksher moved to approve the minutes, M. Escobar seconded. Minutes approved.

Results of SSC Parent Election

New parents representatives elected at Back-to-School Night were Mele Lau-Smith (returning representative, parent of 9th and 12 graders), Jim Fong parent of a 9th grader and Julie Nelson parent of 10th grader.

77 ballots were returned at Back-to-School Night for 5 parent candidates. J. Fong asked what ideas have been discussed in regards to increasing attendance at Back-to-School. Report cards being handed out at BTS night is one. B. Lee thinks some students might attempt to keep their parents away for that reason. Announcements to students via Gal House TV and intercom might help but M. Escobar says kids don’t pay attention to these. Autodialer and mailed announcements do usually happen.

With these new parent reps, the current 2013-2014 Site Council roster is comprised of:

Meeting will be held on the second Wednesday of the month as stated in the By-Laws. For the 2013-2014 year they will be:
November 13th
December 11th
January 8th
February 12th
March 12th
April 9th
May 14th

Discussion of extra dates that might be need for budget planning was postponed until after the SSC Summit.

Communication process

Discussion of the best way to approve, correct and review documents:
L. Ly proposed that using googledocs would be the easiest and there was agreement that this is the most convenient way for members to review and comment on SSC documents such as: Proposed agendas, By-Laws and Minutes before meetings. Members will be responsible for bringing their own copies of the above documents (either printed out or on their laptops).

The Chair will send notification to regular emails addresses of SSC members when there is a googledoc on-line to be reviewed.

Discussion of Myong Leigh’s response to our letter about the district’s newly increased “buffer” of (which generally seemed to be applied, in the negative, to High Schools and, in the positive, to Elementary schools) and the decrease in per-pupil-spending across the district, the result at Galileo being a much greater deficit than we could have planned for. M. Leigh’s response was appreciative of the information but not substantive in any other way.

M. Lau-Smith suggests that we remind them in a letter at budget time that we need to be better informed of any substantial changes that are applied to the formula we use to estimate our budgetary needs for the following year. We might also request a fairer formula that is less disruptive to all schools. J. Peters asked what happened to the Proposition 30 money that was supposed to be flooding into the district this year. M. Smith-Lau stated that apparently the money has not reached school sites directly but is going to the central district offices with the expectation that they will then be better to support school sites centrally.

J. Fong suggested that our principal could discuss the issue with other principals. M. Blacksher said that this was possible.

M.Lau-Smith said she would post the By-Laws in a googledoc on Novemeber 4th, in anticipation of the November 13th SSC Meeting. She asked that people review, comment or propose changes by November 8th after which it will be considered as finalized for the next meeting.

I. Introductions
II. Review and approval of May 14th minutes – no corrections were noted. S. Debella motion to approve. B. Grinell seconded. Motion passes
III. SSC election results:
a. School Personnel: Stan DeBella and Loan Ly were elected as SSC members. Doug Page will no longer serve on the SSC.
b. Parent nominations were solicited at freshman orientation and will be solicited through school loop and PTSA google group. The election will be held on BSN. C.Siegel and MLau-Smith will hold parent orientation on October 15th from 5:30-6:30pm. Interested parents have mentioned that the meeting time is a barrier to being involved. It was noted that a later meeting time is a barrier for students and teachers.
c. K.Pringle agreed to orient student representatives prior to next SSC meeting (October 16th)
IV. SSC Bylaws: It was agreed that the bylaws need to be reviewed and amended as appropriate. JRing sent links to Lowell and Washington’s SSC website pages. Members agreed to read over the current copy of the bylaws, review other high school bylaws and submit any proposed changes to M.Lau-Smith by October 5th. She will send to all SSC members (or upload to the google docs by October 7th) L.Ly agreed to create a google docs folder for SSC members to make edits and suggestions to documents. M.Lau-Smith noted that in order for the SSC to function better than last year, all SSC members need to participate more actively and volunteer to do work in between meetings. In the past, ad hoc committees have been developed to share the work load.
V. Budget discussion: K.Pringle reviewed the final Fall budget. The non personnel operating budget for SY 13-14 is $170,000 compared to $300,000 last year. Some of this is due to a lower enrollment; however the district also deducted $50,000 from the overall budget as a “buffer”. J.Ring also noted that the per pupil spending formula decreased from the Spring to the Fall. There was a discussion as to the lack of information providing by the central district office to explain the decrease to per pupil spending and the seemingly arbitrary “buffer” discussion. UESF members are requesting clarity from the district how the newly hired central staff are helping to lower class size or increase operational budgets. SSC members agreed that a letter should be sent to the district central office asking for explanations for both of these deductions. JRing agreed to do a further analysis of the budget to understand the budget implications. MLau-Smith agreed to draft a letter and send it for review. The goal is to have the letter completed by early next week (week of September 23rd) and signed by all SSC members to be forward to Myong Leigh.

There have been on changes to the budget numbers since the April 4th SSC minutes. The master calendar is still in development. Once it is finalized there may be some adjustments to budget due to changes in number of sections. The final budget is due to District central office on June 14th.

Student representatives inquired about the changes to World Language. Cantonese will no longer be offered and there is less demand for Mandarin. As a result, fewer teachres are needed. Based on Union contract rules, the teacher with the lowest seniority will be “consolidated” which means the teacher will move to another school. Student representatives wanted to present a petition to the Mayor. It was noted that as students they could do that, but the SSC cannot advocate on behalf of a specific teacher.

School Health Office has added .4 FTE nurse for Galileo. As a result there will be a full time nurse next school year.

HR confirmed that they will cover .4 FTE in college/career for a total of 1.0 counselor

3. Identify priorities/process for allocating additional funds
The Final Fall budget update is after the 10 day count. The SY 13-14 budget is based on 1,975 students. There are currently 1,985 students enrolled. May 24th is deadline for second round and then the 3rd round can go through the first week of school. Typically not many students are added in the 3rd round.

Discussion followed about the potential for more funds coming to district based on State budget. It is not clear how any additional funds would be allocated by the District. The following possible priorities were discussed should additional funds come to Galileo:

1. Continue with 80-20 split for classroom/non-classroom
2. Restoration of cut positions from departments and areas that were received most cust
3. Restoration of cut position to keep class size small prioritizing ELD, English, Social Studies, 9th grade math, college counselor (student requests).
4. Adding an additional period to the day for ELD students and high needs students., off track students.

It was noted that the SSC is advisory to the administration re: budgeting, planning, and implementation and that it was probably not the best use of the SSC’s time to engage in a speculative discussion without any real information.

D. Page made a motion that the Administration will send via email to SSC members information and requests for additional funding for information.
B.Grinnell seconded the motion

It was noted that the request for approval of proposed budget should include a deadline and that those SSC members who were unavailable would not be able to respond. SSC members said they checked their emails regularly so this process would work.

1. Parent representatives – M.Lau-Smith and C. Seigal agreed to assist in calling for nominations and having election at Back to School Night
2. Teacher representatives – Faculty leadership team will hold elections in the Fall
3. At large student representative: Student Reps will ask teachers to nominate students in the Fall and hold an election.

It was suggested that the first meeting of the year be used to orient new members re: by laws, meeting process, etc.. Additionally for next year’s budget discussion, the SSC should determine the process for public comments and SSC discussion of its recommendations for the budget.

MLau-Smith agreed to chair the meetings in the Fall until new officers were elected after all the empty seats are filled.
D. Page was nominated and elected to serve as Secretary during meetings in the Fall until new officers were elected after all the empty seats are filled.

A group of students and parents presented petition with over 700 signatures and letters of support for the position of college/intervention specialist. A number of students and parents gave testimonials in support of Mr. Harper. (It was noted after the presentation the student presentation included discussion of a specific person which is outside Roberts Rules of order).

2. Presentation of methodology for proportionally assigning the budget cuts

M. Lau-Smith gave an overview of the proposal to proportionally assign the budgets cuts to classroom personnel vs non classroom personnel. After the April 2nd meeting, Jonathan Ring, Doug Page, Lisa Warnke, and mele lau-smith worked together on the following suggested methodology to distribute reductions and add backs proportionately:

For the 2012-2013, the personnel budget
20% to non-classroom positions
80% to classroom positions
Table A: Total Budget for 2013-2014 is $8,648,139 (See Table 1 below)
WSF – $8,128,301
SCE – $382,569
LEP – $137,269
Table B: If we keep the same ratio for 2013-2014, then we should budget
$1,667,634 to non-classroom positions
$6,670,538 to classroom positions.

Discussion:
S.DeBella noted that the district has more funds available than it is currently spending. Based on the Union audit of district books, the district has $11milliion available that is not being spent.

J. Peters asked if there was any information on the classroom/non classroom split in previous years. The information was not available.

Vote was taken after discussion:

1 Abstention
10 Ayes

Motion passes

2. Classroom add back discussion:

The SSC reviewed and discussed department requests for increased FTEs. (Full Time Equivalents). There was a discussion related to the impact of cut to the ELD and English departments. The cuts will result in a loss of an FTE overall. There will be a loss of an ELD section which will be redesignated to the English Dept.

It was noted that social studies does not have 9th grade classes; so will have same number of students next school year so the department will not have fewer students due to lower enrollment as other departments will experience.

There was a discussion about the AVID department request for a .2 FTE. AVID program was cut a section last year. Due to this cut, the school did not offer enough sections to accommodate all of the AVID students in the 11th and 12th grade. This was very difficult for the students in the program. Fulfilling AVID’s request of .2 FTE will allow all of the AVID students in 9th grade to continue in the 10th grade.

D. Bella: Motion that priority for add back funds be to restore cuts and not add FTE to departments that are not being cut.
Seconded by J Peters

Aye: 2
Noes: 7
Abstention: 2

SSC members then made the following proposals for “add backs” to classroom personnel:

Comments:
Proposal # 3 keeps class size and sections the same from this school year to next.
Social and English – both classes have a lot of writing so class size impacts work load for teachers

SSC agreed on voting process:
Any proposal receiving 6/11 votes goes forward.
If no proposal receives six or more votes, than the proposal with the fewest votes is eliminated and the other proposals are voted on again.

Proposals were discussed in relation to student needs, “bang for buck” (eg: district provides additional funding for counselor position if school site adds FTE, district provides partial funding for librarian), and comprehensive school offerings. SSC used same voting process as above

1. Notes from department heads on the impact on the cuts to their department. Organized by classroom and non –classroom. Also outlines requests that departments are requesting. Information is verbatim
2. Budget allocation from District
3. SSC 2013-2014 cuts: Outlines all possible cuts. This provides overview of possibilities that would maintain class size at
4. SSC 2013-14 – Add backs based on comments received. The budget is based on the budget that was sent round to department heads.
5. Budgets from years past as a reference.
6. Overall projected enrollment: 1992. Change of 200 students worth of funding. 100 ELD students

Other information:

• This school year budget is based on 2,124 students; however the current enrollment is 2,034. As a result, we we were able to preserve more positions because of the “over funding”.
• Next year’s school budget is based on 1,992 students. While this is only a difference of 42 students based on current enrollment, the budget represents a loss of funding for 132 students.
• This means that next year, we are absorbing the budget reduction we were able to avoid this school year. This has resulted in a much larger decrease in one year.
• Additional 65K to 70K in Fall for AP exams. No restrictions on funding.

Overview of all potential cuts.

• Represents $660,971 in cuts, but is more than is needed (need $400K in cuts); therefore there is $186K that can be added back.
• Cuts to Non-classroom represent a 12.2% reduction in the non classroom budget
• Cuts to Classroom represent a 6.4% reduction in classroom budget
• Minimum of 2% of WSF is required to allocate for operating expenses
• $205,823 is the budget amount for SY 12-13 for non personnel costs
• Budget does not include SPED allocation because SPED funds is not controlled at the site level
• LEP (Limited English Proficiency) and SCE (State Compensatory Education) funds are categorical and can only be used for certain needs – cannot be used to supplant general operating expenses (both personnel and operating expenses) – can only be used to supplement.
• ELAC (English Language Advisory Council) decides on the LEP funding allocation

Non-classroom cuts:

• Notes section outlines district requirements (Principal, 3 APs, etc). 1 dean is required; though district encourages two positions. If keep counselor position at same level as SY 12-13, district will provide .5FTE counselor or dean.
• Outlines the positions that are eligible to be cut. The proposed cut is ASB or TSA .20 (budget related).

Classroom cuts:

• English: re-designated English dept classes to ELD. ELD FTE stayed the same. Overall between the two dept there is a 1.6 FTE cut. Eight classes being re-designated as ELD, the classes are being taught by teachers in English dept.
• Science: decrease in district; made up for by site
• VAPA includes .40 FTE from district though haven’t had official notice one way or another.
• World language: phasing out Cantonese – so the FTEs stay the same but allocation of sections to other languages is not clear year (# to French # to Spanish, etc)

Add backs:

• Adds back positions to both non classroom and classroom based on feedback from department heads
• Does not have funds for minimum 2% of WSF required by the district
• Is over budget by $313K.

Discussion:

• The English Department presented rationale for keeping the FTE the same as SY 12-13.
• There were questions related to the counseling positions to clarify that it is not a district requirement that the student to counselor ratio be 400:1. However, the district will provide a .50 FTE counselor should a school site keep the counselor FTE at the same rate as the district. In addition if the school site increases the counselor FTE by .25 FTE, the district will add another .75 FTE.
• PTSA has requested a dedicated college counselor for next year.
• Student representatives noted that college counselor and ASB support were important to them.
• It was suggested that the .75 college intervention specialist position be eliminated, while the budget for counselors be increased by .25 FTE to secure the .75 match from the district. The additional counselor would then be the dedicated college intervention specialist.

Next Steps:
• Agreement to allocate the $186K add back budget proportionately to classroom/non-classroom based on the SY 12-13 budget breakdown of 80% to class room and 20% of budget to non classroom.
• The SSC will meet on Thursday, April 4th at 2:15 pm in room 210 to review and agree upon the proposed methodology for allocating add back funds to classroom/non-classroom
• Once the SSC agrees on the methodology; the budget add backs will be distributed and the budget will be voted on. Budget is due to the district on Friday, April 5th.

$400,000 decrease in SY 13-14 budget. Some of decrease due to fewer students (1,992 vs 2124). Decrease in LEP and SCE (English language learner and Low-income students) budgets were greatest.

Possible that there will be an increase of one additional FTE funded through from Career Tech Education . If this happens, this will free up some funds from the overall budget.

AP funding is based on “new formula”.

There will be fewer students in college/career so there is a need for few classes.
District is allowing students to waive PE for athletics so there will be fewer students in PE.
There will be fewer ELD students so there is less need for classes.

The next steps are for the administration to develop a preliminary budget and BSC for the SSC to review at next meeting.

2. Data Review:

Cell Phone group
Miscellaneous

Early Warning Indicator students (Low GPA/Low attendance) as freshman

As 10th graders: 64 EWI:

50% on track for A-G (30); 27 off track
19 improved/stayed the same attendance; 45 attendance gone down
19 have increased/stayed the same GPA since middle school; 45 GPA gone down

9th graders – 73 EWI

20 on track for A-G; 51 off track ( after one semester)
29 improved/stayed the same GPA since middles school; 26 GPA gone down
26 improved/stayed the same attendance; 29 gotten worse

Calendar – Galileo Academy

Calendar – Galileo Athletics

Calendar – College & Career

About Galileo Academy

The Galileo Academy of Science and Technology provides students with career pathways in biotechnology, environmental science, health, hospitality and tourism, computer science, and creative media technology.

A San Francisco public high school, Galileo Academy is part of the San Francisco Unified School District - SFUSD.

Non-Discrimination Policy: San Francisco Unified School District programs, activities, and practices shall be free from unlawful discrimination, harassment, intimidation, and bullying based on actual or perceived race, color, ancestry, national origin, ethnic group identification, age, religion, marital or parental status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or gender expression; or on the basis of a person’s association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.
If you believe you have been subjected to discrimination, harassment, intimidation, or bullying, you should immediately contact the school site principal and/or Director of the Office of Equity (CCR Title 5 and Title IX Officer), Keasara (Kiki) Williams, at 415-355-7334 or equity@sfusd.edu. A copy of SFUSD’s uniform complaint policy and SFUSD’s non-discrimination policy are available upon request.